By Eliot Van Buskirk August 9, 2010
Google and Verizon announced a joint proposal on Monday that would allow ISPs to offer premium content bundles in addition to the regular, open internet, in an effort to stave off new net neutrality regulations. The two companies say the guidelines would ensure that no internet traffic of any kind is prioritized over other (with the exception of viruses, spam and the like) on the internet. And on the flipside, it would grant content companies looking to deliver services that require too much bandwidth for the regular internet to do so in return for payment, via a second set of pipes.
“There should be a new, enforceable prohibition against discriminatory practices,” reads part of their proposal, posted on both
Verizon’s and Google’s websites. “For the first time, wireline broadband providers would not be able to discriminate against or prioritize lawful internet content, applications or services in a way that causes harm to users or competition.”
According to both Google president Eric Schmidt and Verizon CEP Ivan Seidenberg, the proposal does not include the paid prioritization of one company’s traffic over another — a victory for net neutrality proponents. But it does call for so-called “fast lanes” they’ve been clamoring for — just not on the regular internet. The two executives made clear during a call with the press that these paid services would be transmitted on something besides the internet we know today.
“Our proposal would allow broadband providers to offer additional, differentiated online services, in addition to the internet access and video services (such as Verizon’s Fios TV) offered today,” continues the proposal. “This means that broadband providers can work with other players to develop new services. It is too soon to predict how these new services will develop, but examples might include health care monitoring, the smart grid, advanced educational services, or new entertainment and gaming options.”
“Our proposal also includes safeguards to ensure that such online services must be distinguishable from traditional broadband Internet access services and are not designed to circumvent the rules,” it continues. “The FCC would also monitor the development of these services to make sure they don’t interfere with the continued development of internet access services.”
In other words, to avoid creating tiered access on the internet and dealing with associated governmental red tape, Google and Verizon have proposed creating a second, paid-access-only internet.
Won’t ISPs such as Verizon have an incentive to develop the paid internet while leaving the “open” internet behind? Schmidt said that in addition to the FCC monitoring the situation under their proposal, Verizon will be incapable of ever prioritizing paid traffic over open internet traffic.
“There seems to be a concern that somehow the investment, because of this, would move from the open internet to other things,” said Schmidt. “They way [the proposal] is written, that’s not possible. Furthermore, Verizon and others have a large financial incentive to make the open internet — the public internet — more useful, simply because it’s what their customers want. Frankly, if they were to choose to degrade it, other competitors would enter the market. But of course, they’ve promised not to do that anyway… there’s enough excess supply that they should be able to handle both. And according to this, they’re not allowed to prioritize against the open internet. And I told our friends at Verizon that we will continue to enforce these principles.”
Google, for one, will stay on the open internet, according Schmidt.
“We love the internet and we have no intention of using anything other than the internet,” said Schmidt, adding that YouTube and all other Google services would “always” travel over the open internet.
Under Google’s and Verizon’s proposal, the FCC would have authority it doesn’t currently have to police ISPs for transparency in all of their offerings and fair distribution of content on the “open internet,” fining transgressors up to $2 million per infraction. And all of these wireline broadband rules would apply to the wireless internet as well, with the exception of “transparency,” presumably because wireless networks still aren’t in a position to make any promises about the quality of their service.
What about the deal between Google and Verizon that would see Google paying Verizon to speed its content through Verizon’s internet pipes? You know, the one that was reported by the New York Times? No such deal exists, said Schmidt.
“There is no business arrangement [between Google and Verizon] and reports that there was a business arrangement are false, misleading, and not correct,” said Schmidt in response to the query of a Reuters reporter. “I hope that that is a very clear answer to your business arrangement question.”
What about the deal between Google and Verizon that would see Google paying Verizon to speed its content through Verizon’s internet pipes? You know, the one that was reported by the New York Times? No such deal exists, said Schmidt.
“There is no business arrangement [between Google and Verizon] and reports that there was a business arrangement are false, misleading, and not correct,” he said. “I hope that that is a very clear answer.”
Internet meme-sters have long referred to “the internets” as a sort of inside joke, because of course there’s just one internet.
But if Google’s and Verizon’s proposal goes through, we really would have two internets — one free, where Google pledges to stay, another paid, where services such as 3D television, remote medical procedures, and bandwidth-intensive games appear — for a price.